The Court noted that cellular samples contained much sensitive information about an individual, including information about his or her health. In addition, samples contained a unique genetic code of great relevance to both the individual concerned and his or her relatives. Given the nature and the amount of personal information contained in cellular samples, their retention per se had to be regarded as interfering with the right to respect for the private lives of the individuals concerned.
In the Court’s view, the capacity of DNA profiles to provide a means of identifying genetic relationships between individuals was in itself sufficient to conclude that their retention interfered with the right to the private life of those individuals. The possibility created by DNA profiles for drawing inferences about ethnic origin made their retention all the more sensitive and susceptible of affecting the right to private life.
The Court concluded that the retention of both cellular samples and DNA profiles amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.
Possibly Related Posts:
- Quattrocento milioni di multa a Google. Perché è sbagliato che i diritti abbiano un prezzo
- Per scoprire l’analisi delle emozioni non bisognava aspettare l’AI, bastava una serie TV
- Il problema del cookie wall non è il cookie wall
- Smettere di vivere nella fantascienza per tornare a comprendere la realtà. Oppure no?
- Il marketing dell’IA e l’impatto sui comportamenti sociali